Lecture 3: Lamina theory

Martin Fagerstrom

Division of Material and Computational Mechanics, Department of Applied Mechanics

Chalmers University of Technology, Goteborg, Sweden
e-mail: martin.fagerstrom@chalmers.se
1 Volume and weight fraction
A very important factor determining the properties of a composite is the relative portions of matrix
and bre material. This can be characterised in (at least) two dierent ways: by weight fractions,
W
i
or volume fractions V
i
where i stands for either the matrix (m) or the bre (f) material. The
weight fractions are easier to determine from the manufacturing or by subsequent experiments (due to
mass conservation), whereas the volume fractions is used exclusively in the theoretical analysis of the
properties of the composite material.
1.1 Weight fraction
If the total weight of the composite material is denoted w
c
and the total weights of the matrix and bre
material are denoted w
m
and w
f
respectively, we have that
w
c
= w
m
+w
f
(1)
and the weight fractions of matrix material (W
m
) and bre material (W
f
) can be dened as:
W
m
=
w
m
w
c
, W
f
=
w
f
w
c
(2)
1.2 Volume fractions
If the total volumes of the matrix and bre material are denoted v
m
and v
f
respectively, and if one in the
initial stage neglects the existence of pores in the composite material, the total volume of the composite
material may be expressed as
v
c
= v
m
+v
f
. (3)
Consequently, the volume fractions of matrix material (v
m
) and bre material (v
f
) can be dened as:
V
m
=
v
m
v
c
, V
f
=
v
f
v
c
(4)
But since the weight fractions are easier to determine from experiments, relations between these
weight fractions and the volume fractions are of importance. Introducing
c
,
m
and
f
for the density
of the composite material, the matrix material and the bre material, the relation between the volume
and weight fractions are obtained as
W
f
=
w
f
w
c
=

f
v
f

c
v
c
=

f

c
V
f
(5)
W
m
=

m

c
V
m
(6)
Remains then to determine the density of the composite material (neglecting the existence of pores).
To do this, we rst note that the total volume of the composite may be written as
v
c
=
w
c

c
=
w
m

m
+
w
f

f
=
w
f

m
+
f
w
m

m
. (7)
1
From this expression, we can obtain
c
as

c
=
w
c

f
w
f

m
+
f
w
m
=
1
w
f
w
c

f
+
w
m
w
c

m
=
1
(W
f
/
f
) + (W
m
/
m
)
. (8)
It should be remarked that in the presence of voids, the actual composite density is somewhat lower.
In general, this discrepancy might be rather small (less than 1% for a good composite) but a dierence of
up to 5% can be expected for a poorly produced composite. However, the actual eect of a higher amount
of voids may have signicant inuence on some of the properties such as a lowered fatigue resistance and
strength.
2 Analytical and semi-empirical methods for predicting lamina
properties of unidirectional composites
The properties of a composite material depend on the properties of its constituents, their concentrations,
distributions and orientations as well as their physical and chemical interaction. The most direct method
to determine the properties of a composite material is by experimental methods. In many cases,
rather simple methods can be used to determine e.g. longitudinal stiness and strength of a lamina.
However, the experimental results obtained are only valid for that particular bre matrix system in terms
of volume fractions, constituent properties and production method. If any one of these are changed, new
experiments need to be performed in order to establish the properties of the new system. Such extensive
testing might be very time consuming and costly, whereby analytical or semi-empirical models can be a
very valuable tool to predict some of the properties. Some of the available models, to obtain homogenised
properties of the composite, will be discussed below in this section.
2.1 Longitudinal properties
2.1.1 Stiness
To predict the longitudinal stiness of a unidirectional composite lamina, the bres are assumed as
uniform in properties and size and parallel throughout the composite, cf. Figure 1. Furthermore, pre-
fect bonding between the matrix and the bres is assumed. This implies that the longitudinal strains
experienced by the bres
fL
, the matrix
mL
and the composite
cL
are the same:
Figure 1: Model for predicting longitudinal behaviour of unidirectional composite (from Agarwal et al,
Figure 3-3).

fL
=
mL
=
cL
(9)
This is in general homogenisation theory denoted the Voight assumptions which serves as an upper limit
of the possible stiness of a composite in any direction, given a certain bre volume fraction.
2
Based on the assumptions above, the longitudinal load P
c
carried by the composite will be shared
between the bres P
f
and the matrix P
m
so that
P
c
=
c
A
c
= P
f
+P
m
=
f
A
f
+
m
A
m
(10)
where
c
,
f
and
m
are the stresses experienced by the composite, the bres and the matrix respectively
and where A
c
, A
f
and A
m
are the corresponding total cross sectional areas. From Eq. (10), we can
get the expression for the composite stress
c
which by using the fact that the area fractions equals the
volume fractions of a unidirectional composite takes the form

c
=
f
A
f
A
c
+
m
A
m
A
c
=
f
V
f
+
m
V
m
. (11)
If we now assume that both the bres and the matrix behaves linear elastic ( = E) we obtain the
expression of the longitudinal elastic stiness (modulus) of the composite as
E
L
= E
f
V
f
+E
m
V
m
(12)
which generally is denoted the rule of mixtures. For a composite of n constituents, the expression for the
longitudinal stiness can be generalised as
E
L
=
n

i=1
E
i
V
i
. (13)
It should be remarked that Eqs. (12),(13) are only valid as long as both the matrix and the bre
material behaves linear elastic. This may however constitute only a small portion of the stress-strain
behaviour and generally, the longitudinal deformation of a unidirectional composite proceed in four
stages:
1. The matrix and the bres both deform linear elastically
2. The bres still deform linear elastically whereas the matrix deforms nonlinearly elastic or even
plastically
3. The bres and the matrix both deform in a nonlinear fashion
4. The bres break followed by composite failure
Whereas stage 3 can be observed only for ductile bres, stage 2 may occupy the largest portion of
the composite stress-strain curve (which is no longer linear) and the longitudinal composite stiness
(modulus) must be predicted at each composite strain level
c
as
E
L
= E
f
V
f
+
_

m
_

c
V
m
(14)
where
_

m
_

c
is the slope of the matrix stress-strain curve at strain
c
. However, in practice, the
non-linearity of the stress-strain curve for the matrix material has low eect on the composite stiness,
especially at signicant bre fraction. Thus, in many cases Eq. (12) is a good approximation.
It should be remarked that the rule of mixtures is accurate for longitudinal tensile stiness. But
when loaded in compression, the response of the composite observe din experiments may
deviate from the analytical predictions (ROM). This because the combined compressive properties
is strongly dependent on the matrix material properties, such as its shear stiness (cf. buckling), whereas
the tensile response is much more governed by the bre properties.
3
Figure 2: Graph showing the percentage of the total force carried by the bres in a unidirectional
composite as function of bre volume fraction (from Agarwal et al, Figure 3-5).
2.1.2 Tensile strength
Failure initiates when the bres are subjected to their fracture strain, assuming that the bre failure strain

f
is less than the matrix failure strain which is generally the case. In most practicable applications with
a suciently high volume fraction of bres, the failure stress of the composite
cu
(cu for composite
ultimate) can be expressed by the rule of mixtures as:

cu
A =
fu
A
f
+ (
m
)

f
A
m

cu
=
fu
A
f
A
+ (
m
)

f
A
m
A

_
A
f
A
= V
f
,
A
m
A
= V
m
_

cu
=
fu
V
f
+ (
m
)

f
V
m
=
_
matrix linear elastic up to

f
_
=
fu
_
V
f
+
E
m
E
f
V
m
_
(15)
where
fu
is the bre fracture stress (or ultimate strength of the bres) and (
m
)

f
is the stress in a
matrix subjected to the strain at which the bres fail (

f
), cf Figure 3.
Figure 3: Graph showing the composite longitudinal failure stress
cu
as function of bre volume fraction
(from Agarwal et al, Figure 3-7).
It can be seen that Eq. (15) predicts a lower composite strength for the composite compared to the
unreinforced matrix material for a certain level of bre volume fraction (below V
crit
). V
crit
is dened as
4
when the failure strength of the composite equals the failure strength of the unreinforced matrix material,
i.e.

fu
V
crit
+ (
m
)

f
(1 V
crit
)
. .
V
m

V
crit
=

mu
(
m
)

fu
(
m
)

f
. (16)
However, for most practical applications (V
crit
) is really small. Consider e.g. the common composite
material consisting of carbon bres and epoxy matrix (or resin) material, we can from mean values of
the respective strength for carbon bres (cf. table 1-1)
fu
2.3 GPa and epoxy (cf. table 2-11)

mu
92.5 MPa and assuming that the epoxy is linear elastic up to the failure strain of the bres

f
= 2.3 10
9
/315 10
9
= 0.0073 (
m
)

f
= 3.425 10
9
. .
E
epoxy
0.0073 = 25 MPa obtain V
crit
as:
V
crit
=
92.5 10
6
25 10
6
2.3 10
9
25 10
6
0.03 (17)
That is, the critical volume fraction of bres V
crit
is about 3% which is considerably lower than in any
practical applications ( 50-60%).
2.1.3 Compressive strength
It is unlikely that the bres would break due to compressive stresses. But when being subjected to
compressive loads the bres acts as long columns and so-called micro-buckling can occur. Of course, the
buckling load of a bre embedded into a matrix is signicantly larger than for a free bre. But still, bre
buckling can occur even when the corresponding matrix stresses are in the elastic range. However, for
practical bre volume fractions (V
f
> 0.4), bre buckling of often preceded by other failure phenomena
to be discussed further in the lectures covering failure.
2.2 Factors inuencing longitudinal stiness and strength
There are a number of factors that may inuence the longitudinal stiness and strength of a composite
leading, in some cases, to signicant deviations from the predictions discussed above.
Misorientation of bres
Fibre orientation directly inuences the properties of the composite. Naturally, the contributions
from the bres is maximised only when the bres are aligned with the loading direction. As a
consequence, the stiness and strength will be reduced when the bres are not parallel to the
loading direction. However, the discrepancy is small and no corrections have to be made if the
misalignment is small, i.e. limited to a few degrees. It should be remarked that in the general
case, a composite material is often composed of a number of unidirectional lamina with dierent
orientations stacked on top of each other. For that type of composite materials, there are several
appropriate theories (co-called laminate theories) available to described the structural response, cf.
Lecture L4 and Chapters 6-8 in the course book.
Fibres of nonuniform strength
First of all it should be remarked that any reduction of the bre strength directly results in a
lowered strength of the composite material. Consequently, a composite of high strength is obtained
when the bres are uniform in strength. Reasons for a non-uniform distribution may be due to at
least the following two reasons:
1. A variation of cross section as function of length
2. As a result of initial damage due to handling of the bres before manufacturing the composite
In addition, the bre strength decrease as the bre length increases. This is due to the fact that
statistically, the existence of any strength reducing factor increases with length and the bre will
always rst break at its weakest link. In any case, it should be remarked that bres start to break
5
at loads lower than the composite strength and that this accumulates up to nal failure. Thus, for
detailed predictions of the composite strength, statistical methods need to be incorporated which
however is considered as out of scope in the current course.
Discontinuous bres
When the length of the bre is in the same order of size as the length over which the load is
transmitted through the matrix material, we speak of discontinuous bre reinforcements. In these
materials, the end eects (variation of stress along the bre and stress concentrations) cannot be
neglected and must be dealt with. This is however not included in the current course. Interested
students are referred to Chapter 4 in the course book for reference.
Interfacial conditions
More pronounced importance for discontinuous-reinforced-bre composites.
Inuences the transversal strength.
Good adhesion between bre and matrix enhances water resistance.
A lower interface strength may lead to a higher composite ductility and, hence, a high fracture
toughness.
Residual stresses
Originates predominantly from the manufacturing process due to
A variation between thermal expansion coecients for the bre and the matrix material
A signicant dierence in temperature at manufacturing and temperature at use, cf. also
Computer Assignment 1.
It should be remarked that the existence of residual stresses signicantly impact the response and the
properties (strength) for he composite material and should be included in an advanced assessment
analysis of a composite. How this is to be incorporated practically is not always straightforward,
but this should denitively be kept in mind! The residual stresses in composites is much more
importance for the component performance than say in the case of traditional metal components
in which the residual stress often decrease with time due to local (and often harmless) plastic
deformations.
2.3 Transverse properties
2.3.1 Transverse stiness prediction based on the constant stress assumption - Reuss as-
sumption
Consider a lamina of unidirectional (UD) continuous bre reinforcements loaded by a transversal tensile
stress
c
. For this purpose, study a Representative Volume Element (RVE) as a generic block consisting
of bre material bonded to matrix material, as shown in Figure 4.
In this case, the elongation of the composite in the loading direction
c
is obtained by the sum of the
elongation in the matrix material and in the bre material according to

c
=
cT
L
2
=
fT
L
f
+
mT
L
m
(18)
where
cT
,
fT
and
mT
are the transversal strains in the composite RVE, the bre materials and the
matrix material respectively. Furthermore, since the RVE do not change along the longitudinal direction,
the length fractions must equal the volume fractions such that

cT
=
fT
V
f
+
mT
V
m
. (19)
By introducing Hookes law, (and neglecting any poisson strains) this can be written as

c
E
T
=

f
E
f
V
f
+

m
E
m
V
m
. (20)
6
Figure 4: Model for predicting transverse stiness of unidirectional composite (from Gibson, Principles
of Composite Material Mechanics 2nd ed., 2007).
If we now nally assume that the stress in each of the constituents (bre and matrix) is the same (the
so-called Reuss assumption), i.e. we have that

c
=
f
=
m
(21)
we end up with the inverse rule of mixtures for the transverse modulus as
1
E
T
=
V
f
E
f
+
V
m
E
m
(22)
It should be remarked that by assuming equal stress in both bres and matrix, the resulting expression
for the (transverse) stiness can be shown to be the lower bound given a certain bre volume fraction,
cf. also Figure 5.
inverse rule of mixtures
Figure 5: Longitudinal and transverse stiness as function of bre volume fraction (from Agarwal et al,
Figure 3-9a). Please note that the rule of mixtures (Voight assumption) serves as an upper limit of the
composite stiness whereas the inverse rule of mixtures (Reuss assumption) serves as the lower bound
2.3.2 Halpin-Tsai semi-empirical model for transverse stiness prediction
The inverse rule of mixtures might produce poor predictions since in reality the stresses are not equal in
the matrix and bre material.
The improve the predictions, Halpin and Tsai developed simple and generalised equations to t more
advanced micromechanical models for transverse stiness. The Halpin-Tsai equation for the transverse
composite stiness (modulus) can be written as
E
T
E
m
=
1 +V
f
1 V
f
, =
(E
f
/E
m
) 1
(E
f
/E
m
) +
(23)
7
in which is a measure of the reinforcements and relates to the bre geometry (curve tting parameter).
Halpin and Tsai have proposed = 2 for circular or quadratic cross sections and = 2
a
b
for
rectangular cross sections in which a and b are side lengths of the cross section.
This has proven to be adequate in many practical situations, cf. Figure 6 for a comparison made
against experimental data for boron-epoxy lamina reported by Whitney and Riley (J. IAAA, 4:1537,
1966), and it generally gives a better prediction than the prediction obtained based on the equivalence
of stress in the bre and the matrix material (the inverse rule of mixtures).
inverse rule of mixtures
Figure 6: Transverse stiness predicted by the inverse rule of mixtures and the Halpin-Tsai equation
compared with experimental data reported by Whitney and Riley for boron-epoxy (from Agarwal et al.,
gure 3-9b).
2.3.3 Transverse strength
The transverse strength of a composite is reduced by the existence of bres. The reason is that due to
their geometry, the bres cannot carry a large portion of the load which instead is distributed between
the bre and the matrix material. Instead, the existence of bres place restrictions on the transverse
deformations, causing strain and stress concentrations in their vicinity, cf. Figure 7 which results in an
overall decreased strength in comparison to the unreinforced matrix material.
Figure 7: Stress distribution in matrix surrounding a single cylindrical inclusion E
F
/E
m
= 10,
m
=
0.35,
f
= 0.3 (from Agarwal et al., gure 3-12a).
Thus, the composite transverse failure strength
TU
can be expressed as

TU
=

mu
S
(24)
8
in which S is a strength reduction factor. This reduction factor can be predicted by several methods.
The strength-of-materials method
Based on the strength-of-materials method, the factor S is assumed to be equal to the stress concen-
tration factor SCF which has the expression (neglecting the Poisson eects) :
SCF =
1 V
f
(1 (E
m
/E
f
))
1 (4V
f
/)
1/2
(1 (E
m
/E
f
))
. (25)
Based on Finite Element Analysis
Another alternative is to analyse the stress distribution in a UD lamina by FEM, cf. the results in
shown in Figure 7 obtained by e.g. Chen and Lin (Mater. Res. Stand. MTRSA, 9:29-33, 1969).
Figure 8: Principal stress in matrix surrounding multiple bres obtained by FEM by Chen and Lin

m
= 0.35,
f
= 0.2 (from Agarwal et al., gure 3-12b).
2.4 Shear modulus
Study subsection 3.4 in the course book on your own.
2.4.1 Major results
Inverse rule of mixtures:
G
LT
=
1
V
f
/G
f
+V
m
/G
m
(26)
Halpin-Tsai:
G
L
T
G
m
=
1 +V
f
1 V
f
, =
(G
f
/G
m
) 1
(G
f
/G
m
) +
, = 1 (27)
2.5 Poissons ratio
Study subsection 3.5 in the course book on your own.
2.5.1 Major results
Major Poissons ratio
LT
Major Poissons ratio
LT
relating the longitudinal stress to the transverse strain:

LT
=
f
V
f
+
m
V
m
(28)
9
Minor Poissons ratio
TL
Minor Poissons ratio
TL
relating the transverse stress to the longitudinal strain:

LT
E
L
=

TL
E
T

TL
=
LT
E
T
E
L
(29)
3 Expansion coecients
Study 3.7.1 and 3.7.2 in the course book on your own.
For the thermal case, the underlying assumptions (not explained in the text) in the derivations are:
The bres are isotropic
The matrix is isotropic
The strains in the longitudinal direction are the same in the matrix and in the bres (Voight
assumption)
The stresses in the transverse direction are constant, i.e. the Reuss assumption is used
The macroscopic stresses in the lamina are zero, i.e.
L
= 0 and
T
= 0 is used.
Major results
Thermal expansion coecients (from Scharpery,J. Compos Mater., 2:280-404, 1968):

L
=
1
E
L
(
f
E
f
V
f
+
m
E
m
V
m
) (30)

T
= (1 +
f
)
f
V
f
+ (1 +
m
)
m
V
m

LT
(31)
Moisture expansion coecients:

L
0 (due to that the bres are signicantly stier than the moisture absorbing matrix) (32)

T
=

c

m
(1 +
m
)
m
(cf. e.g. Tsai and Hahn, Introduction to Composite Materials, 1980) (33)
10